Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards Computational Thinking Beliefs of Computer Science Non-major Students in Introductory Robotics - A Comparative Study

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Trends and Applications in Information Systems and Technologies (WorldCIST 2021)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 1367))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

While computational thinking is a popular concept in K12 education, it is not very well researched in undergraduate students of computer science non-major degrees. In the current study the critical factors in learning computational skills from the students’ point of view are being researched. To grasp which skills are considered critical a questionnaire was constructed to measure the self-evaluation for a mixed group of undergraduate computer science non-major students who attained an introduction in physical computing using both Lego Mindstorms and humanoid Nao robots at a university of applied sciences. The results show, that the computational thinking self-assessment of the students has a significant influence on their evaluation of physical computing exercises. Furthermore, the students prefer humanoid robots over automotive robots and their robot evaluations and computational thinking self-assessment varies based on their field of study. The results point to further investigations into the conceptions and beliefs of students in future studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Janke, E., Brune, P., Studt, R.: Exposing students to the unfamiliar - improving software engineering teaching in non-major computer science programs. In: 2013 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), pp. 1294–1298 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Guzdial, M.: Education Paving the way for computational thinking. Commun. ACM 51, 25–27 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1378704.1378713

  3. Lockwood, J., Mooney, A.: Computational thinking in education: where does it fit? A systematic literary review. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Educ. Schools 2(1), 41–60 (2018). abs/1703.07659, 2017

    Google Scholar 

  4. Wing, J.M.: Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49, 33–35 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

  5. Anwar, S., Bascou, N., Menekse, M., Kardgar, A.: A systematic review of studies on educational robotics. J. Pre-College Eng. Educ. Res. (J-PEER) 9(2), 26 pages (2019). https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1223. Article 2

  6. Przybylla, M., Romeike, R.: Physical computing and its scope - towards a constructionist computer science curriculum with physical computing. Inform. Educ. 13, 241–254 (2014). https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2014.05

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shute, V.J., Sun, C., Asbell-Clarke, J.: Demystifying computational thinking. Educ. Res. Rev. 22, 142–158 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003. ISSN 1747-938X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Atmatzidou, S., Demetriadis, S.: Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: a study on age and gender relevant differences. Robot. Auton. Syst. 75(Part B), 661–670 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008. ISSN 0921-8890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gressmann, A., Weilemann, E., Meyer, D., Bergande, B.: Nao robot vs. lego mindstorms: the influence on the intrinsic motivation of computer science non-majors. In: Proceedings of the 19th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling 2019), Article 14, 10 pages. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3364510.3364512

  10. Barr, V., Stephenson, C.: Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads 2, 48–54 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905

  11. Jedlitschka, A., Pfahl, D.: Reporting guidelines for controlled experiments in software engineering. In: 2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, ISESE 2005, Noosa Heads, Qld. Australia, 10 pages (2005). https://doi.org/10.10.1109/ISESE.2005.1541818

  12. Streiner, D.L.: Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J. Pers. Assess. 80, 99–103 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA800118

  13. Field, A.: Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics: And sex and drugs and rock’n’roll, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications Ltd. (2009). ISBN 1847879071

    Google Scholar 

  14. McDermott, R., Pirie, I., Cajander, Å., Daniels, M., Laxer, C.: Investigation into the personal epistemology of computer science students. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2013). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp. 231–236 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pancratz, N., Diethelm, I.: Utilizing the repertory grid method to investigate learners’ perceptions of computer science concepts. In: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. WCCE 2017: Tomorrow’s Learning: Involving Everyone. Learning with and about Technologies and Computing, pp. 547–556 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74310-3_55

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences, 89231, Neu-Ulm, Germany

    Bianca Bergande & Anne Gressmann

Authors
  1. Bianca Bergande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne Gressmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bianca Bergande .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ISEG, University of Lisbon, LISBOA, Portugal

    Álvaro Rocha

  2. College of Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Hojjat Adeli

  3. Institute of Data Science and Digital Te, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

    Gintautas Dzemyda

  4. DCT, Universidade Portucalense, Porto, Portugal

    Fernando Moreira

  5. Department of Information Sciences, University of Sheffield, Lisboa, Portugal

    Ana Maria Ramalho Correia

6 Appendix

6 Appendix

The Questionnaire

In order to guarantee anonymity and still be able to assign the questionnaire to a further survey. We ask you to provide it with a self-generated code. The code consists of a combination of the your parents’ names and your own date of birth. This code does not allow identification. Example of the code:

  • Your mother’s name is ELSBETH

  • Your father’s name is EDGAR

  • Your birthday is 08.10.1988

  • This results in the code EL ED 08.

Please enter your individual personal code here:

  1. 1)

    Which robot did you work with lately? (NAO/Lego EV3)

  2. 2)

    How much did you like the exercises with the Lego Mindstorm Robot/ the Nao Robot? (Please evaluate: 1 = very well / 5 = not at all)

  3. 3)

    Take a minute to think about your experience. Working with the kit and performing the tasks has likely been challenging at some points. Which step has been the most challenging for you? Please put the different tasks in order from the easiest (=1) to the hardest (=7). Please read all 7 dimensions before putting them in order: (Ranking of replies)

    • a) understanding the code blocks

    • b) understanding control structures

    • c) finding a solution

    • d) understanding the underlying concepts

    • e) fixing technical problems

    • f) Debugging the code blocks

    • g) Arranging the code blocks.

  4. 4)

    Which programming languages did you know before ProTech? Please check the boxes that apply: (Multiple Choice: JAVA/Java Script/PHP/C/C++/Python/Ruby)

  5. 5)

    Is this the first time you have come in touch with physical computing?(Yes/No)

  6. 6)

    If you have done physical computing before, which platforms did you use? Please check the boxes. (Multiple Choice: Nao/Lego Mindstorms/Arduino Boards/Others:)

  7. 7)

    Now that we have assessed the exercise, please think about your own abilities and please give a quick feedback. How much do you approve the following statements? (1 = I totally agree / 7 = I totally disagree). Please read carefully.

    • I can easily separate important from redundant information.

    • I have a hard time to sort out important from unimportant information.

    • It is fun to find common patterns in different datasets and codes.

    • I can easily identify a programming structure or command from a line of code.

    • It is a challenge for me to apply my knowledge in new tasks.

    • I like it when I can use one solution to solve different problems.

    • It is easy to adapt a general concept to a specific problem.

    • I often find myself reusing parts of an old solution in a new task.

    • I enjoy working with a fixed concept or script to create something new.

    • Creating solutions is best with creativity! No boundaries for me!

    • When facing a challenge I think it is best to carefully plan and then carry out a plan step by step.

    • The easiest way to complete a task is to break it down into pieces.

    • I prefer to keep the whole system in mind when working on a task.

    • I feel like I learn more when I work hands on than “just” programming on a screen.

    • Also fixing technical issues is not helpful when learning programming. It distracts me.

  8. 8)

    Demographics: Thank you for your patience! As a final step I need some personal information about you while respecting your privacy! Please note that this questionnaire will be part of research that is aimed to be published. While your age or gender might be significant your personal data will be automatically anonymised and you cannot be identified.

  • What is your age? Please tick of the boxes that apply! (younger than 17/17-20/21-24/25-29/29+)

  • What is your gender? (Female/Male/No answer)

  • What are you studying? (IMCC/IMA/Other/No answer).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Bergande, B., Gressmann, A. (2021). Towards Computational Thinking Beliefs of Computer Science Non-major Students in Introductory Robotics - A Comparative Study. In: Rocha, Á., Adeli, H., Dzemyda, G., Moreira, F., Ramalho Correia, A.M. (eds) Trends and Applications in Information Systems and Technologies . WorldCIST 2021. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1367. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72660-7_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation